Re: 1. Mike Behe's letter to SCIENCE, 2. Provine & Gish's letters, 3. Less of...

From: Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Date: Mon Jul 24 2000 - 10:53:09 EDT

  • Next message: Richard Wein: "Re: 1. Mike Behe's letter to SCIENCE, 2. Provine & Gish's letters, 3. Less of..."

    At 03:05 AM 07/24/2000 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
    >From: Steve Clark <ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu>
    >
    >[snip]
    >
    > >Behe says that the evidence for ID is irreducible complexity. Whether or
    > >not you agree with it (I do not) it is evidence nonetheless. You need to
    > >debate him on other grounds.
    >
    >To say that IC is evidence for ID is like saying that finding presents at
    >the foot of a Christmas tree is evidence for Santa Claus.

    If your hypothesis is that Santa brings presents on Christmas eve, then the
    presents are indeed evidence to support that theory.

    >(For the sake of
    >argument, I'm setting aside the question of whether IC has actually been
    >adequately defined.)

    That is a different issue, but perhaps a better one to challenge Behe with
    than the simplistic claim that he hasn't provided evidence for ID.

    >That is, it is an observation which could be explained
    >by the hypothesis, but science (or rational thinking) should reject this
    >explanation because there is a more parsimonious explanation which is
    >consistent with the data.

    Alternative explanations always accompany a given set of data. Martians
    also could have deposited the presents. This explanation fully explains
    the observation. When trying to decided between alternative explanations,
    parsimony is but one way, and it is highly overused and its limitations not
    fully appreciated. I know that parsimony is touted as a "law" of science
    but it's role in science also has been severely challenged. So, beware of
    this argument.

    Now, it seems to me that the best interpretation for the presents under the
    tree is to say that this observation is consistent with the hypothesis that
    Santa delivers presents on Christmas eve. Likewise, Behe's argument would
    be best stated as the observation of IC is consistent with ID. No matter
    how you view ID, this statement is accurate and provide evidence in support
    of the ID hypothesis.

    Cheers

    Steven S. Clark, Ph.D.
    Associate Professor of Human Oncology and
    Member, UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
    University of Wisconsin School of Medicine
    600 Highland Ave, K4/432
    Madison, WI 53792

    Office: (608) 263-9137
    FAX: (608) 263-4226

    ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
    http://www.humonc.wisc.edu/clark/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 11:01:37 EDT